The idea of 'replacement' requires the assumption that social media in general is good. I think that is a big assumption.
You misunderstood me. The post I replied to said:
If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them.
Public discourse inherently requires a venue for public discourse. So that much is assumed by the post I was replying to. Whether that venue is social media or something else is completely irrelevant. As soon as you have a venue for public discourse, you have all the problems that the GGP was complaining about Facebook failing to solve.
There are only two ways to handle that: human moderation and machine moderation. The former is completely impractical in a highly connected world unless you're willing to drop 99.99% of the comments for lack of time to even look at them, which leaves the latter.
And if you're going to go with machine moderation, your choices are an established player that has already spent a great deal of time learning how to categorize comments to filter out abuse or a non-established player that hasn't. So again, if you remove Facebook, who do you replace them with, and will they be starting over from scratch, relearning everything Facebook has already learned?
Now if you'd like to ban all public discourse, there's always that option, though it probably won't work out the way you might hope.
If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them. And if we want to make the world a better place, how about banning Facebook altogether. Let's be intolerant of a platform that breeds intolerance.
And your proposed replacement is?
There are good reasons to not like Facebook, but failing to completely block intolerance is not one of them. Your "solution" to this relatively hard problem is to get rid of a company that has already spent significant resources trying to solve it, and replace it with some other service by someone that no doubt has not even started trying to solve it yet.
The best-case result of that approach is a temporary reprieve, followed quickly by even worse problems than before, because the new company will have to start by re-learning everything that Facebook has already learned. The worst-case result of that approach is an immediate descent into the sorts of language that would make a sailor blush, followed by the site owner scrapping the whole thing as a failed experiment.
Five to ten nags per hour is once every 6 mins. If you "almost always" have your hand on your wheel, then that sounds about right, because you don't always have your hands on the wheel, per your admission.
Nope. The nags are not in any way correlated with whether I have my hands on the wheel at the time. If anything, the nags occur most frequently when I have the tightest grip on the wheel.
The problem with the way Tesla handles wheel detection is that the car detects hands on the wheel based on whether you turn the wheel slightly or limit how much the car can turn the wheel. Neither of these is something a driver would naturally do while letting the car drive itself unless the car is doing something wrong. The natural inclination is to use a very light touch that is just sufficient to feel whether the car is doing something stupid like suddenly veering, up until the point that you need to squeeze and rotate. But when you do that, the car has no idea that you are there, and nags you.
To make it even stranger, from what I've seen, the nag almost always occurs when the car changes from going less than 30 MPH to over 30 MPH. It has a high probability of tripping at 30 MPH without regards to how you're holding (or not holding) the wheel. The nag usually disappears if you move the wheel a little, of course. It isn't failing to detect the driver's actions; it just expects the driver to wiggle the wheel when it isn't at all reasonable to expect that behavior (e.g. when the car is going straight).
Experimentally, if you don't engage AutoSteer until you are going over 30 MPH, you almost never get nagged, even if you don't touch the wheel at all, unless traffic falls below 30 MPH and then increases again, at which point you get nagged even if you're holding the wheel with a death grip. I've almost never tried to use AutoSteer at speeds below 30 MPH (except while stopped in traffic), because city streets with lower limits around here tend to either have no center line or be winding nightmares that causes AutoSteer to have an epileptic fit or both, so I can't say what its behavior is at lower speeds.
They finally got halfway decent lane management in the Model X in firmware 2018.10.4, released a couple of weeks ago. Up until that point, it was usually okay on most major freeways and city streets, but catastrophically bad on winding highways (e.g. CA-17) and on roads with significant hills and/or dips.
Actually, if you ignore intersections in the middle of curves, the Tesla autopilot does a very good job of handling city streets, in my experience. I've had far fewer autopilot glitches in city driving than in highway driving, in part because city streets tend not to have center barriers six inches from the lane that tend to freak it out a little.
I do, of course, have to manually handle stop signs and traffic lights, but I have to say that it does a bang up job with the occasional pedestrian or bicycle lane incursion. (Hmm. Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words.)
The car usually worked okay, it just had an obsession with that particular barrier.
That's the problem with AIs. Sometimes they lust after the wrong things and try to hump the center barriers. Mine has a particular affection for one just north of Idylwild (IIRC) in the southbound direction on CA-17 — not a gore point, but rather a curve where it suddenly tries to steer left into the side of the barrier.
It also thinks the off-ramp at Charleston road (south of 101) is a shortcut onto the highway, and tries to cut through the striped cutacross with regularity.
I've just learned that there are some spots where I should expect to have to yank the wheel and take back control, and some spots where I should disable autopilot entirely. For the other 95% of the time, it's great.
Except he probably did have his hands on the wheel. The Model X is notorious for nagging even when the user does have his or her hands on the wheel. Even though I almost always have my hands on the wheel, I get about five to ten nags per hour — often several nags within a minute or two.
In other words, Tesla's data is approximately the equivalent of spinning a roulette wheel of accident causes. It's crap, and is correct only slightly more often than chance.
The numbers from Tesla are, of course, nothing more than a work of fiction. My Model X is constantly screaming at me to put my hands on the wheel even when I'm gripping it with an iron grip in spots where I expect the autosteer to do something exceptionally stupid.
Unfortunately, the Tesla's notion of whether your hands are on the wheel or not comes from whether you are resisting the autosteer, which most sane drivers do not do unless the autosteer is doing something dubious. With the latest firmware (2018.10.4), the autosteer doesn't suck hopelessly (unlike the previous firmware version), so there's no reason to actively resist it most of the time.
In other words, saying that he didn't interact with the wheel for six seconds just means it was more than six seconds since the car last steered hard enough to surprise him. It has little to no bearing on whether his hands actually were or were not on the wheel. I'm growing more and more concerned, now that I've experienced a Tesla with autosteer, wondering how many of the previous accidents in which Tesla claimed driver inattention might have not involved inattention at all.
What is changing is that the highly unrealistic target of 50 mpg for fleet average requirements in 2025 are going to be scaled down to something that is actually achievable.
Unrealistic? Really? The Prius does better than that right now. And AFAIK, all EVs do *much* better than that in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent-amount-of-power. All it takes to hit that target is to produce more electric vehicles, more hybrids, and fewer gas hogs. It literally requires nothing more than changing the number of vehicles in each category that you build, while working to push down the price of electric vehicles to be more affordable. How is that unrealistic? Beyond, I mean, the possibly unrealistic goal of getting automakers to stop dragging their heels and whining and screaming like petulant children....
I've noticed that after loading up a significant amount of nitrogen from repeated deep SCUBA dives, my joints become considerably more "crackly". It takes less motion to pop them, and they can be popped again in a shorter amount of time than normal.
Shorter time? Hmm. The joints in my right hand won't crack for a long time after I've cracked them once, but the joints in my left hand can be cracked immediately after cracking them, and I've done this at least thirty times in a row while reading this discussion thread. Perhaps there are multiple causes of cracking joints, some of which don't involve bubbles?
But if you start out with the assumption that their ATMs don't dispense the currency you need, why would you even bother looking for or at an ATM in the first place? And if you don't ever look at an ATM, how can you notice those signs on the ATMs?
Case in point, I've flown through Heathrow at least half a dozen times, and I've never noticed that the ATMs dispense Euros or USD. And I'm fairly observant compared with the general population. If I didn't notice it, the vast majority of people won't, except by accident.
IF real regulations were written to allow prioritization for real-time AV services that were implemented in a neutral fashion, I could support that. Otherwise, yeah, it's Comcrap looking to rake in more bucks. Yawn.
But they don't have a point. Nowhere in that need is there any valid reason for Comcast to charge VoIP providers money for doing so. Prioritizing VoIP is fine. Charging money for that prioritization to companies that they compete with is per se an antitrust violation right off the bat, because it means that those companies have to pay for not having their service degraded to levels below the speed that Comcast's service automatically gets effectively for free.
Give them this and it's guaranteed they'll abuse it above and beyond the stated intent.
The stated intent is per se abuse, so IMO, even if they don't go above and beyond the stated intent, they're still evil incarnate.
VoIP is precisely the sort of paid prioritization that should explicitly not be allowed, because as soon as you do, you'll get Comcast throttling VoIP service to the point that it is unusable, and charging VoIP providers for paid prioritization so that their service works again. But of course, Comcast's own VoIP won't be affected.
There is NO reason whatsoever that prioritization should be paid, period. Prioritizing traffic based on type is fine. Prioritizing it based on destination is per se abusive, regardless of whether money is involved, and there is no sane justification for allowing an ISP to charge an Internet company who is not their customer a fee in exchange for not throttling the ISP customers' access to that Internet company's services. That goes beyond abuse, and IMO rises to the level of racketeering, and IMO, should get a bunch of ISP executives a few decades in a country club prison somewhere.
There is literally no possible situation where paid prioritization is not fundamentally abusive, and it is almost always a per se violation of antitrust laws, too. And none of the ISPs have come up with even one single concrete example that they claim isn't abusive and potentially illegal. They just don't want a law to get passed unless there's a way to weasel their way out from under it so they can continue screwing the consumer in whatever way suits them. That's not what laws are supposed to do. That's regulatory capture, and if such a complete joke of a law passes, I'll have no choice but to conclude that the FCC is no longer even making any pretense of protecting the public good, and that they are all so crooked that we'd be better off shutting the whole thing down and returning the authority of regulating communications networks back to the states.
Ask Mexico what happens when your currency gets devalued to the point that nobody will take it. I remember many trips when all the shopkeepers preferred U.S. dollars, because the Peso was bordering on toilet paper.
Good to know, for future reference. I always assumed they were pounds-only, and thus never bothered using them. I'd imagine that's true for most travelers.
No bollocks to that. We benefitted pheomenally from being in the EU.
Sure, but the point is that you could have benefitted more. For example, every person who flew through Heathrow en route to the continent waited to get money from an ATM until they got to their destination, because they couldn't do anything with pounds sterling. That's probably millions of dollars in ATM fees every year alone that were left on the table by not going with the shared currency.
And who knows how many people visiting Paris briefly considered popping over to London, but decided not to bother because of having to get there an hour early for passport checks, plus having to deal with a different currency for part of the trip, etc. And Eurostar being a UK company means that you didn't just lose the tourist dollars; you also lost the transit fares.
Arguably, the interests of the people as a whole are with a united Europe that allows the free flow of workers and tourists from country to country without a cumbersome visa process. The problem is, Great Britain was never really part of the EU. It just paid lip service to it. They used their own currency, they required passport screening to travel via train to France, etc. So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.
And to the extent that a shared currency and freedom of travel between EU member countries is beneficial, it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.
Posting a dictionary definition of "privacy" is cute, but utterly irrelevant. I'm not talking about explicit meaning here. I'm talking about the implied meaning perceived by an average person.
By saying that you're doing something because of privacy, in the minds of most readers, you're implying that Facebook takes away your right to privacy, whereas in reality, Facebook enables sharing, allowing you to choose to make things public. That's an important distinction, and denying that distinction just makes you look paranoid.
To use a car analogy, this is like saying that you reject cars for safety reasons; that implies that cars are inherently dangerous, whereas in reality, they're a relatively safe mode of travel (safer than walking, statistically).
So, if he said "I don't use facebook, because I value my privacy.", it would be "cool" ? Isn't not having something is a nice way of not using it, in general ? And in the specific case of Facebook, isn't not having it a nice way of using it less?
I would argue that not having an account means you can't see what other people are saying about you, so you have slightly *less* privacy.
Either way, what you're really saying when you say that you're rejecting Facebook because of privacy is that you're rejecting Facebook because you don't want to share *anything*, which is a relatively rare position. Using the word "privacy" implies that everyone should feel the same way as you do, because most people do value their privacy (but not to the point of not sharing *anything*).
Deliberately falsely badmouthing a company in order to drive it's stock price down is legally called "tortious interference", and is VERY actionable.
How does badmouthing a company and driving its stock price down interfere with a company's ability to execute contracts or interfere with its business relationships? It's market manipulation, not tortious interference, and it is illegal because of SEC law (section 9(a)(2)), not because of contract/business law.
Wow. I just realized something mind-blowing. For years, this person has been warning us anonymously that many of our Facebook "friends" are really a bunch of Russian trolls. Suddenly, it all makes sense!
Actually, Silicon Valley is in precisely the geographical center of the universe. It turns out the big bang was caused by a tantalum manufacturing plant malfunction.
I don't have facebook, because I value my privacy.
I value my privacy, too. That's why I limit what I share. You choose to share nothing, and that's fine, too. But apart from some purely theoretical "If enough people leave Facebook, the company will die and everyone will get back more of their privacy" argument, there cannot possibly be any privacy benefit to not having a Facebook account.
To use a car analogy, rejecting Facebook because of privacy is like rejecting automobiles and walking everywhere out of concerns over pollution. It requires completely ignoring the fact that you choose how much you drive a car, whether the car is gas-powered or electric, and whether you get your electricity from renewable sources exclusively or not. From a pollution perspective, you are in complete control over how much pollution your car produces. (And even that analogy doesn't go far enough, because EVs cost a lot more than ICE cars; choosing not to post private stuff on FB doesn't cost you anything.)
In much the same way, from a privacy perspective, you are in complete control over how much you share with Facebook. If you're concerned about tracking on other sites, there are tools to block that. You can also use a separate browser (or, if you're really paranoid, a VPN and a separate browser) when using Facebook. And you can limit what you share explicitly if you have an account; it isn't as though your fingers magically type Facebook messages and click "Post" beyond your control. And you can't control what other people share, whether you have an account or not. So having a Facebook account is effectively a no-op from a privacy perspective; at worst, it has a negligible impact. It's what you do with it that impacts your privacy, just like what car you drive, how far you drive, and how fast you drive dictates how much your car pollutes.
It's okay to admit that you don't see the benefit of Facebook. That's a perfectly valid position. But privacy is an excuse, and it's not cool to mislead people about the privacy implications of using Facebook merely because you don't personally see the benefit of it.
I'd be less likely to hire someone who would be less likely to hire someone who had a Facebook account, because it implies that:
When friends move away, you never bother to keep in touch with them.
You were so cliquish in high school that you never want to hear from anybody back there ever again.
You were equally cliquish in college.
You still didn't learn to get along, and now hate everyone at every previous employer.
You only keep people around when those people help you, and as soon as you no longer need them, you throw them away.
You tend to make broad, sweeping assumptions based on the assumption that everyone must think the way you do, or else they must be stupid.
In short, it is a strong indication that you're precisely the opposite of the sort of person that I would want to work with. In fact, in a bit of dramatic irony, your post exhibits some of the classic symptoms of the very narcissism you're claiming that all Facebook users exhibit. Hilarious.
I put pretty much the entire "Delete Facebook" noise into the same mental bucket as your post. Facebook only gets what you and others give them. Don't want them to have information? Say less and click less frequently. Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. Either way, on the whole, the only thing you can really control is what you do or say on Facebook, which means the best thing to do is to keep Facebook, but use it less.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood me. The post I replied to said:
If we want to have more constructive public discourse in areas of conflict, it's probably better to ban Facebook in them.
Public discourse inherently requires a venue for public discourse. So that much is assumed by the post I was replying to. Whether that venue is social media or something else is completely irrelevant. As soon as you have a venue for public discourse, you have all the problems that the GGP was complaining about Facebook failing to solve.
There are only two ways to handle that: human moderation and machine moderation. The former is completely impractical in a highly connected world unless you're willing to drop 99.99% of the comments for lack of time to even look at them, which leaves the latter.
And if you're going to go with machine moderation, your choices are an established player that has already spent a great deal of time learning how to categorize comments to filter out abuse or a non-established player that hasn't. So again, if you remove Facebook, who do you replace them with, and will they be starting over from scratch, relearning everything Facebook has already learned?
Now if you'd like to ban all public discourse, there's always that option, though it probably won't work out the way you might hope.
And your proposed replacement is?
There are good reasons to not like Facebook, but failing to completely block intolerance is not one of them. Your "solution" to this relatively hard problem is to get rid of a company that has already spent significant resources trying to solve it, and replace it with some other service by someone that no doubt has not even started trying to solve it yet.
The best-case result of that approach is a temporary reprieve, followed quickly by even worse problems than before, because the new company will have to start by re-learning everything that Facebook has already learned. The worst-case result of that approach is an immediate descent into the sorts of language that would make a sailor blush, followed by the site owner scrapping the whole thing as a failed experiment.
Nope. The nags are not in any way correlated with whether I have my hands on the wheel at the time. If anything, the nags occur most frequently when I have the tightest grip on the wheel.
The problem with the way Tesla handles wheel detection is that the car detects hands on the wheel based on whether you turn the wheel slightly or limit how much the car can turn the wheel. Neither of these is something a driver would naturally do while letting the car drive itself unless the car is doing something wrong. The natural inclination is to use a very light touch that is just sufficient to feel whether the car is doing something stupid like suddenly veering, up until the point that you need to squeeze and rotate. But when you do that, the car has no idea that you are there, and nags you.
To make it even stranger, from what I've seen, the nag almost always occurs when the car changes from going less than 30 MPH to over 30 MPH. It has a high probability of tripping at 30 MPH without regards to how you're holding (or not holding) the wheel. The nag usually disappears if you move the wheel a little, of course. It isn't failing to detect the driver's actions; it just expects the driver to wiggle the wheel when it isn't at all reasonable to expect that behavior (e.g. when the car is going straight).
Experimentally, if you don't engage AutoSteer until you are going over 30 MPH, you almost never get nagged, even if you don't touch the wheel at all, unless traffic falls below 30 MPH and then increases again, at which point you get nagged even if you're holding the wheel with a death grip. I've almost never tried to use AutoSteer at speeds below 30 MPH (except while stopped in traffic), because city streets with lower limits around here tend to either have no center line or be winding nightmares that causes AutoSteer to have an epileptic fit or both, so I can't say what its behavior is at lower speeds.
They finally got halfway decent lane management in the Model X in firmware 2018.10.4, released a couple of weeks ago. Up until that point, it was usually okay on most major freeways and city streets, but catastrophically bad on winding highways (e.g. CA-17) and on roads with significant hills and/or dips.
Actually, if you ignore intersections in the middle of curves, the Tesla autopilot does a very good job of handling city streets, in my experience. I've had far fewer autopilot glitches in city driving than in highway driving, in part because city streets tend not to have center barriers six inches from the lane that tend to freak it out a little.
I do, of course, have to manually handle stop signs and traffic lights, but I have to say that it does a bang up job with the occasional pedestrian or bicycle lane incursion. (Hmm. Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words.)
That's the problem with AIs. Sometimes they lust after the wrong things and try to hump the center barriers. Mine has a particular affection for one just north of Idylwild (IIRC) in the southbound direction on CA-17 — not a gore point, but rather a curve where it suddenly tries to steer left into the side of the barrier.
It also thinks the off-ramp at Charleston road (south of 101) is a shortcut onto the highway, and tries to cut through the striped cutacross with regularity.
I've just learned that there are some spots where I should expect to have to yank the wheel and take back control, and some spots where I should disable autopilot entirely. For the other 95% of the time, it's great.
Except he probably did have his hands on the wheel. The Model X is notorious for nagging even when the user does have his or her hands on the wheel. Even though I almost always have my hands on the wheel, I get about five to ten nags per hour — often several nags within a minute or two.
In other words, Tesla's data is approximately the equivalent of spinning a roulette wheel of accident causes. It's crap, and is correct only slightly more often than chance.
The numbers from Tesla are, of course, nothing more than a work of fiction. My Model X is constantly screaming at me to put my hands on the wheel even when I'm gripping it with an iron grip in spots where I expect the autosteer to do something exceptionally stupid.
Unfortunately, the Tesla's notion of whether your hands are on the wheel or not comes from whether you are resisting the autosteer, which most sane drivers do not do unless the autosteer is doing something dubious. With the latest firmware (2018.10.4), the autosteer doesn't suck hopelessly (unlike the previous firmware version), so there's no reason to actively resist it most of the time.
In other words, saying that he didn't interact with the wheel for six seconds just means it was more than six seconds since the car last steered hard enough to surprise him. It has little to no bearing on whether his hands actually were or were not on the wheel. I'm growing more and more concerned, now that I've experienced a Tesla with autosteer, wondering how many of the previous accidents in which Tesla claimed driver inattention might have not involved inattention at all.
Unrealistic? Really? The Prius does better than that right now. And AFAIK, all EVs do *much* better than that in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent-amount-of-power. All it takes to hit that target is to produce more electric vehicles, more hybrids, and fewer gas hogs. It literally requires nothing more than changing the number of vehicles in each category that you build, while working to push down the price of electric vehicles to be more affordable. How is that unrealistic? Beyond, I mean, the possibly unrealistic goal of getting automakers to stop dragging their heels and whining and screaming like petulant children....
Shorter time? Hmm. The joints in my right hand won't crack for a long time after I've cracked them once, but the joints in my left hand can be cracked immediately after cracking them, and I've done this at least thirty times in a row while reading this discussion thread. Perhaps there are multiple causes of cracking joints, some of which don't involve bubbles?
But if you start out with the assumption that their ATMs don't dispense the currency you need, why would you even bother looking for or at an ATM in the first place? And if you don't ever look at an ATM, how can you notice those signs on the ATMs?
Case in point, I've flown through Heathrow at least half a dozen times, and I've never noticed that the ATMs dispense Euros or USD. And I'm fairly observant compared with the general population. If I didn't notice it, the vast majority of people won't, except by accident.
But they don't have a point. Nowhere in that need is there any valid reason for Comcast to charge VoIP providers money for doing so. Prioritizing VoIP is fine. Charging money for that prioritization to companies that they compete with is per se an antitrust violation right off the bat, because it means that those companies have to pay for not having their service degraded to levels below the speed that Comcast's service automatically gets effectively for free.
The stated intent is per se abuse, so IMO, even if they don't go above and beyond the stated intent, they're still evil incarnate.
VoIP is precisely the sort of paid prioritization that should explicitly not be allowed, because as soon as you do, you'll get Comcast throttling VoIP service to the point that it is unusable, and charging VoIP providers for paid prioritization so that their service works again. But of course, Comcast's own VoIP won't be affected.
There is NO reason whatsoever that prioritization should be paid, period. Prioritizing traffic based on type is fine. Prioritizing it based on destination is per se abusive, regardless of whether money is involved, and there is no sane justification for allowing an ISP to charge an Internet company who is not their customer a fee in exchange for not throttling the ISP customers' access to that Internet company's services. That goes beyond abuse, and IMO rises to the level of racketeering, and IMO, should get a bunch of ISP executives a few decades in a country club prison somewhere.
There is literally no possible situation where paid prioritization is not fundamentally abusive, and it is almost always a per se violation of antitrust laws, too. And none of the ISPs have come up with even one single concrete example that they claim isn't abusive and potentially illegal. They just don't want a law to get passed unless there's a way to weasel their way out from under it so they can continue screwing the consumer in whatever way suits them. That's not what laws are supposed to do. That's regulatory capture, and if such a complete joke of a law passes, I'll have no choice but to conclude that the FCC is no longer even making any pretense of protecting the public good, and that they are all so crooked that we'd be better off shutting the whole thing down and returning the authority of regulating communications networks back to the states.
Ask Mexico what happens when your currency gets devalued to the point that nobody will take it. I remember many trips when all the shopkeepers preferred U.S. dollars, because the Peso was bordering on toilet paper.
Good to know, for future reference. I always assumed they were pounds-only, and thus never bothered using them. I'd imagine that's true for most travelers.
Sure, but the point is that you could have benefitted more. For example, every person who flew through Heathrow en route to the continent waited to get money from an ATM until they got to their destination, because they couldn't do anything with pounds sterling. That's probably millions of dollars in ATM fees every year alone that were left on the table by not going with the shared currency.
And who knows how many people visiting Paris briefly considered popping over to London, but decided not to bother because of having to get there an hour early for passport checks, plus having to deal with a different currency for part of the trip, etc. And Eurostar being a UK company means that you didn't just lose the tourist dollars; you also lost the transit fares.
Arguably, the interests of the people as a whole are with a united Europe that allows the free flow of workers and tourists from country to country without a cumbersome visa process. The problem is, Great Britain was never really part of the EU. It just paid lip service to it. They used their own currency, they required passport screening to travel via train to France, etc. So they got a lot of the headaches of being in the EU, while missing a lot of the benefits.
And to the extent that a shared currency and freedom of travel between EU member countries is beneficial, it is also to the benefit of the people of the EU to make an example of Britain, to make it as painful as possible for them, to discourage anyone else from leaving, because every time any country leaves, all the other countries are worse off.
Posting a dictionary definition of "privacy" is cute, but utterly irrelevant. I'm not talking about explicit meaning here. I'm talking about the implied meaning perceived by an average person.
By saying that you're doing something because of privacy, in the minds of most readers, you're implying that Facebook takes away your right to privacy, whereas in reality, Facebook enables sharing, allowing you to choose to make things public. That's an important distinction, and denying that distinction just makes you look paranoid.
To use a car analogy, this is like saying that you reject cars for safety reasons; that implies that cars are inherently dangerous, whereas in reality, they're a relatively safe mode of travel (safer than walking, statistically).
I would argue that not having an account means you can't see what other people are saying about you, so you have slightly *less* privacy.
Either way, what you're really saying when you say that you're rejecting Facebook because of privacy is that you're rejecting Facebook because you don't want to share *anything*, which is a relatively rare position. Using the word "privacy" implies that everyone should feel the same way as you do, because most people do value their privacy (but not to the point of not sharing *anything*).
How does badmouthing a company and driving its stock price down interfere with a company's ability to execute contracts or interfere with its business relationships? It's market manipulation, not tortious interference, and it is illegal because of SEC law (section 9(a)(2)), not because of contract/business law.
Wow. I just realized something mind-blowing. For years, this person has been warning us anonymously that many of our Facebook "friends" are really a bunch of Russian trolls. Suddenly, it all makes sense!
That's what your cell phone's GSM radio is for.
Braaaaaaaaaaaa-tatatataaaa-taaaaaatatatat.
Actually, Silicon Valley is in precisely the geographical center of the universe. It turns out the big bang was caused by a tantalum manufacturing plant malfunction.
I value my privacy, too. That's why I limit what I share. You choose to share nothing, and that's fine, too. But apart from some purely theoretical "If enough people leave Facebook, the company will die and everyone will get back more of their privacy" argument, there cannot possibly be any privacy benefit to not having a Facebook account.
To use a car analogy, rejecting Facebook because of privacy is like rejecting automobiles and walking everywhere out of concerns over pollution. It requires completely ignoring the fact that you choose how much you drive a car, whether the car is gas-powered or electric, and whether you get your electricity from renewable sources exclusively or not. From a pollution perspective, you are in complete control over how much pollution your car produces. (And even that analogy doesn't go far enough, because EVs cost a lot more than ICE cars; choosing not to post private stuff on FB doesn't cost you anything.)
In much the same way, from a privacy perspective, you are in complete control over how much you share with Facebook. If you're concerned about tracking on other sites, there are tools to block that. You can also use a separate browser (or, if you're really paranoid, a VPN and a separate browser) when using Facebook. And you can limit what you share explicitly if you have an account; it isn't as though your fingers magically type Facebook messages and click "Post" beyond your control. And you can't control what other people share, whether you have an account or not. So having a Facebook account is effectively a no-op from a privacy perspective; at worst, it has a negligible impact. It's what you do with it that impacts your privacy, just like what car you drive, how far you drive, and how fast you drive dictates how much your car pollutes.
It's okay to admit that you don't see the benefit of Facebook. That's a perfectly valid position. But privacy is an excuse, and it's not cool to mislead people about the privacy implications of using Facebook merely because you don't personally see the benefit of it.
I'd be less likely to hire someone who would be less likely to hire someone who had a Facebook account, because it implies that:
In short, it is a strong indication that you're precisely the opposite of the sort of person that I would want to work with. In fact, in a bit of dramatic irony, your post exhibits some of the classic symptoms of the very narcissism you're claiming that all Facebook users exhibit. Hilarious.
I put pretty much the entire "Delete Facebook" noise into the same mental bucket as your post. Facebook only gets what you and others give them. Don't want them to have information? Say less and click less frequently. Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. Either way, on the whole, the only thing you can really control is what you do or say on Facebook, which means the best thing to do is to keep Facebook, but use it less.